Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

How to (Properly) Evaluate Cross-Lingual Word Embeddings: On Strong Baselines, Comparative Analyses, and Some Misconceptions

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1902.00508 v1 pith:D6KJ6TSA submitted 2019-02-01 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords modelscross-lingualperformancedownstreamembeddingstaskwordwork
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Cross-lingual word embeddings (CLEs) enable multilingual modeling of meaning and facilitate cross-lingual transfer of NLP models. Despite their ubiquitous usage in downstream tasks, recent increasingly popular projection-based CLE models are almost exclusively evaluated on a single task only: bilingual lexicon induction (BLI). Even BLI evaluations vary greatly, hindering our ability to correctly interpret performance and properties of different CLE models. In this work, we make the first step towards a comprehensive evaluation of cross-lingual word embeddings. We thoroughly evaluate both supervised and unsupervised CLE models on a large number of language pairs in the BLI task and three downstream tasks, providing new insights concerning the ability of cutting-edge CLE models to support cross-lingual NLP. We empirically demonstrate that the performance of CLE models largely depends on the task at hand and that optimizing CLE models for BLI can result in deteriorated downstream performance. We indicate the most robust supervised and unsupervised CLE models and emphasize the need to reassess existing baselines, which still display competitive performance across the board. We hope that our work will catalyze further work on CLE evaluation and model analysis.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. On the Robustness of Unsupervised and Semi-supervised Cross-lingual Word Embedding Learning

    cs.CL 2019-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Unsupervised cross-lingual embeddings are much less reliable on noisy social media text and on distant language pairs, so supervision remains important for robust alignment.

Pith tools